included in the body of evidence for the instant case, they will be added to it because they are germane to the examination of the case. 109. Likewise, during the procedure for “reconstruction of the facts” (supra para. 9), the State and the representatives provided new documentation and photographs on the facts of the instant case. No objections were raised as to the admissibility of the documents and photographs, nor were their authenticity or accuracy challenged. Therefore, under the terms of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court finds that it can proceed to admit the documents submitted by the representatives and the State. 110. Prior to the public hearing, the State had submitted certain documents in response to requests for information and helpful evidence issued under Court order on November 6, 2013 (supra para. 10). The State also submitted unsolicited documents “in the understanding that they might prove useful to the Court,” and more specifically, it sent “copies from the files of documents on this case by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” The representatives and the Commission had the opportunity to submit their observations. The representatives filed a petition regarding the State’s failure to submit the entirety of case files from the criminal proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction, asking that certain alleged facts be held as true “when the only way to disprove them is through evidence that the State should have submitted but refused to do so.” The State had explained that the documents pertained to material compiled by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, held by the Ombudsman, and the representatives cautioned that because the State was not claiming exceptional circumstances to justify the overdue submission, these documents therefore “were time-barred” and should be rejected. Nevertheless, they noted that these documents included copies of statements delivered by various people who had taken part in the facts of the case, as well as certain other procedural documents from the investigations conducted by the ordinary jurisdiction. They therefore agreed that the material should be admitted only if it proved relevant to the Court’s request for further helpful evidence They also contended that the document “Annex 12.1-Legal Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission” should be admitted “because it summarizes the Truth Commission’s findings on the facts addressed by this case. The Commission stressed that the documents were procedurally time-barred, “unless the [...] Court should deem the evidence relevant for an understanding of the case.” 111. This Court holds that, although the documentation under discussion had not been requested, it could prove useful for adjudging the instant case, as it consisted primarily of statements by persons who took part in the operation and witnesses, as well as documents submitted as part of the judicial proceedings. It should also be noted that these documents are part of the material collected for the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru, which in turn had also been used as evidence by both the Commission and the representatives; as such, it would be necessary to include the material in the case file to ensure as much as possible that the Court could know the truth of the matter and correctly weigh the processes and investigations the State had undertaken. Thus, under the terms of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, and having granted the parties the opportunity to comment, the Court holds that these documents can be admitted, as they are relevant for examination of the instant case. 112. Over the course of the public hearing (supra para. 11), the representatives submitted several documents, providing copies to the State and the Commission. No objections were raised to the admissibility of the information and documentation submitted, nor were their truth or authenticity challenged. The Court therefore agrees to add this material, pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, as it is relevant and useful for ruling on the instant case.